First half of January 1528 (Part 4)

Martin Luther continues to write Concerning Rebaptism, A Letter of Martin Luther to Two Pastors. Today’s Quotation is taken from paragraphs 50 – 52 of this letter, in which Luther addresses the question, “What about the baptism of children?”

Quotation:

[continued from the previous post] We read in the Acts of the Apostles [2:39; 16:15, 33] and in the Epistles of St. Paul [1 Cor. 1:16] that they baptized entire households; and surely children formed a considerable portion of the household. Hence it seems that, just as Christ commanded them to teach and baptize all nations, so the apostles did, and without distinction they baptized all who were in the household. They did not anticipate that the factious spirits [1] would seek to differentiate between the young and the old. If they had, they would have been explicit and openly declared all these things, since otherwise, in all their Epistles, they have written abundantly that there is no respect or difference of persons among Christians. [Rom. 10:12] For St. John, in his first Epistle, writes to the little children that they know the Father. [1 John 2:13c] And, as St. Augustine writes, undoubtedly infant baptism came from the apostles. [2]

So the Anabaptists act dangerously in everything, not only because they are uncertain respecting their position, but also because they act contrary to those passages of Scripture they have adduced, and devise out of their own heads differences between persons, where God has made no difference. For even if they contended that their arguments had not been  sufficiently refuted by these passages, they must nevertheless, quarrelsome as they are, be concerned and fearful that they are doing wrong in rebaptizing on such uncertain grounds. But if they are uncertain, they are already convicted of doing wrong; for in divine matters one should not trifle with uncertainties, but act upon certainties. [3]

Now suppose an Anabaptist (that is, one who is disposed not to be obstinate but teachable) hears that just as John received faith and was made holy when Christ came and spoke through the mouth of his mother, so a child also receives faith when Christ speaks to it in baptism, through the mouth of the baptizer, because it is the Word, the command of Christ, and his word cannot be spoken without fruit, then the Anabaptist must acknowledge that this may be so, that he cannot entirely and firmly deny it nor adduce any Scripture in opposition to it. But if he cannot deny it clearly and convincingly, then he cannot firmly defend his rebaptism. For he must first firmly prove that children are without faith when they are baptized, if he is to establish the necessity of rebaptism. Thus, I think, it has been sufficiently proved that their position is uncertain and presumptuous [4] throughout. [to be continued in the next post]

Notes

[1] Rotten geister. I.e., the “sectarian spirits” or “enthusiasts” of Luther’s time.

[2]  De Genesi ad literam Book X. Cap 23. The New City Press edition of Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis (2002) translates the next-to-last sentence of this chapter: “The custom, all the same, of mother Church in baptizing babies is never on any account to be spurned nor in any way to be set aside as superfluous; nor should one believe at all that it is anything but an apostolic tradition.” The translator provides the following footnote on this sentence: “I think this is what it must mean; but it is a very odd phrase in the Latin: nec omnino credenda nisi apostolica esset traditio; at first sight this means, ‘nor should it be believed at all (that is, one should not believe in baptizing infants), unless it were an apostolic tradition.’ Perhaps that is what Augustine did mean; take your choice.” (p. 423) J.H. Taylor’s translation (Paulist Press, 1982) reads: “But the custom of our mother Church in the matter of infant baptism is by no means to be scorned, nor to be considered superfluous, nor to be believed except on the ground that it is the tradition of the apostles.” (Vol. 2, p. 127) How ever this sentence is understood in detail, it is clear that Augustine accepted infant baptism as a practice originating with the apostles, which is Luther’s point.

[3] Luther’s point here is that the Anabaptists are attempting to overthrow a practice (and teaching) of the church that has stood for over a thousand years. If they are to be successful, then they must have arguments from Scripture that are absolutely clear and beyond dispute. However, he believes he has shown that not to be the case.

[4] vermessenheit, also translated “supercilious” (LW) and “arrogant” (TAL).